It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Section 6050W, enacted by the Housing Assistance Tax Act of 2008, requires a payment settlement entity to report payments made to merchants for goods and services in settlement of payment card and third-party payment network transactions.
No need for personal attacks, makes you look like a douchebag. Paypal states that they can close your account any time they suspect fraud.
Paypal states that they can close your account any time they suspect fraud. This has long been their policy.
How do we deal with this? Either DONT USE THE SERVICE or DONT TRY TO GIVE FRAUDULENT INFORMATION. Simple, no?
Additionally, Australia is much more strict than the US when it comes to reporting. I do not know the tax code in Australia but I know that eBay/PayPal reports your sales to the tax authority of your respective country. I don't imagine asking for your annual income to determine tax information is illegal. When you LIE about it, you have committed fraud, and therefor are subject to having your account frozen. That's what happens when you LIE.
Originally posted by Bluesma
This is all so strange! We've used Pay Pal for years (my husband buys and sells stuff on it regularly) and we have never been asked to fill out forms such as that or provide such sorts of information.
Is that specific to Australia, and due to laws they have there?
One time we got an email requesting personal info from Pay Pal, but my husband called them right away and found out it wasn't from them, it was a scam, and that was the end of it.
You're arguing that they have violated a contractual agreement, but they have done nothing of the sort.
The parties to the contract have a mutual understanding of what the contract covers. For example, in a contract for the sale of a "mustang", the buyer thinks he will obtain a car and the seller believes he is contracting to sell a horse, there is no meeting of the minds and the contract will likely be held unenforceable.
The contract involves an offer (or more than one offer) to another party, who accepts the offer. For example, in a contract for the sale of a piano, the seller may offer the piano to the buyer for $1,000.00. The buyer's acceptance of that offer is a necessary part of creating a binding contract for the sale of the piano.
Please note that a counter-offer is not an acceptance, and will typically be treated as a rejection of the offer. For example, if the buyer counter-offers to purchase the piano for $800.00, that typically counts as a rejection of the original offer for sale. If the seller accepts the counter-offer, a contract may be completed. However, if the seller rejects the counter-offer, the buyer will not ordinarily be entitled to enforce the prior $1,000.00 price if the seller decides either to raise the price or to sell the piano to somebody else.
In order to be valid, the parties to a contract must exchange something of value. In the case of the sale of a piano, the buyer receives something of value in the form of the piano, and the seller receives money.
In order to be enforceable, the action contemplated by the contract must be completed. For example, if the purchaser of a piano pays the $1,000 purchase price, he can enforce the contract to require the delivery of the piano. However, unless the contract provides that delivery will occur before payment, the buyer may not be able to enforce the contract if he does not "perform" by paying the $1,000. Similarly, again depending upon the contract terms, the seller may not be able to enforce the contract without first delivering the piano.
In a typical "breach of contract" action, the party alleging the breach will recite that it performed all of its duties under the contract, whereas the other party failed to perform its duties or obligations.
It is implicit within all contracts that the parties are acting in good faith.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by apoc36
Again, and this cannot be stressed or emphasized enough apparently, if the "account was not set up properly" then Paypal had no business activating the account, then waiting until a transaction had been made in order to withhold paying the money that was intended for the account user, not Paypal. Since the account was activated, it is hard to argue now that it was "not set up properly". It was set up properly enough for a transaction to be made and then that money withheld with no reason given.